Research reported in Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2, May 1997, indicates that executions may actually increase the number of murders, rather than deter murders. Prof. Ernie Thomson at Arizona State University reported a brutalizing effect from an execution in Arizona, consistent with the results of a similar study in Oklahoma.

Fishteacher73, you misquoted Syntax: that was my post. I tried to show how capital punishment works as a deterrent with very simple arithmetic. If killers are not released back into society to kill, there will be less murders. Any faulty logic in that? Of the 281 killers, in my example, that were turned loose and killed again, would you like them rehabilitated? Keep them housed, clothed and fed for another fifty years? You say District Attorneys don't go for the death penalty because it's too hard? Let's make it easier. End plea bargaining. It's a cancer in the justice system. As far as the Department of Justice running a skewed web site, you lost me there. They offer statistics, not opinions. I'M the one that takes the statistics and skews them. The problem with capital punishment is the people who are more concerned with the perpetrater than the victim, more concerned with hurting a killer's feelings than the well being our social system that is overwhelmed with violence. What is objectionalbe about ridding our social system of confirmed killers and sexual predators? We don't have the rescources to coddle killers. If you are really concerned with humane treatment of people, start with the victims. Spend your quarter rehabilitating the thousands of children who are raped and left to "deal with it." There is a finite amount of time and money available and I say, don't spend it on the deviants. Help those who are candidates to commit violence instead of crooning over the inhumane treatment of inhumane perps. All people are not created equal. There is nothing HOLY and sacrosanct about being born Homo sapian: or have I missed something?

I've been watching this thread for a while but stayed out since its so much about whether capital punishment is "right" or not, but I've got a rather radical proposition and would love to hear people's reactions:

I don't believe punishment of *any* kind provides much of a disincentive to commit crime. If anything it seems to be like most locks: it keeps the honest people honest, but people (and there seem to be so many) who believe that the world owes them something and they think they can get away with it (which in many cases they do), are out there commiting crime left and right. My evidence? Just a sample:

This might be the time to suggest my proposal for controlling violent crime:

Require all citizens 18 and over to carry handguns. Exceptions would be made for the incompetent, conscientious objectors, and felons (who would lose the right to bear arms, with VERY stiff penalties for violations).

There is no black and white answer to this as it depends so much on the culture and the society where it is used. It clearly had an effect in older, smaller societies where the public could visualize the consequences of the crime that led to such punishment. People in these societies could more easily imagine themselves in the place of the condemned as a result of commiting a similar act.

In societies where the execution of punishment is removed from the public at large it's effect is largely diminished. A larger percentage of the population feels that it happens to others, but not to them. Hearing that someone has been executed though news sources just odes not have the same impact on the psyche that attending a public hanging does for example. IMO, as the execution and the process leading up to it are removed further and further from the public eye, the deterrent effect is lost.

I grew up in an era when the paddle was still used in the classroom. The teachers that used this most effcetively were the ones which brought the offender to the front of the class and paddled them right there. You could feel the pain of the offender as you listened to the crack of the paddle and watched their eyes wince. You really could think about that if you considered commiting the same offense. Of those which took the offender to the office and later returned with an offender that had the time to compose themself before returning, the effect was greatly diminished.

2) Is captital punishment moral?

I'll leave this question for a debate on the term moral first. It is tied so deeply to peoples personal beliefs as opposed to societal beliefs, so what is moral in one society is disgusting in another. People which believe in dieties have such a wide range of belief on this too such that it does not have a black and white answer either.

It certainly reduces the ability to commit further crime by the individual. Even imprisonment allows the perpetrator of a murder to either attack a prison officer or another inmate. Also its possible they could escape or be released to commit another crime. I dont see anything morally wrong with capital punishment however I would like to see a very good burdon of proof on the person before it occurred. I think that DNA profiling has made the case for capital punishment more acceptable although I wouldn't want this evidence to be the only burdon of proof. Even DNA can be planted about a crime scene by someone wishing to fit someone up. I think that allowing capital punishment does contain the danger that mistakes will be made and we as a society have to accept that this may happen occasionally. I do believe that some people commit such atrocious acts that they forgoe their rights to life.

Fishteacher73, you misquoted Syntax: that was my post. I tried to show how capital punishment works as a deterrent with very simple arithmetic. If killers are not released back into society to kill, there will be less murders. Any faulty logic in that? Of the 281 killers, in my example, that were turned loose and killed again, would you like them rehabilitated? Keep them housed, clothed and fed for another fifty years? You say District Attorneys don't go for the death penalty because it's too hard? Let's make it easier. End plea bargaining. It's a cancer in the justice system. As far as the Department of Justice running a skewed web site, you lost me there. They offer statistics, not opinions. I'M the one that takes the statistics and skews them. The problem with capital punishment is the people who are more concerned with the perpetrater than the victim, more concerned with hurting a killer's feelings than the well being our social system that is overwhelmed with violence. What is objectionalbe about ridding our social system of confirmed killers and sexual predators? We don't have the rescources to coddle killers. If you are really concerned with humane treatment of people, start with the victims. Spend your quarter rehabilitating the thousands of children who are raped and left to "deal with it." There is a finite amount of time and money available and I say, don't spend it on the deviants. Help those who are candidates to commit violence instead of crooning over the inhumane treatment of inhumane perps. All people are not created equal. There is nothing HOLY and sacrosanct about being born Homo sapian: or have I missed something?

As I stated earlier, it actually currently costs more to execute a prisoner than to house them for life, so monetary concerns lean against CP... As for keeping them off the streets...Life imprisonment does the same thing. I see no viable argument that would indicate that killing the offender does anything but kill them. Most studies idicate that CP is NOT a deterrent and it costs more. This would mean that every argument you have put forth for CP actually points toward abolishing the archaic and barbaric sytem istead of bolstering its dubious reputation (This ASSUMING (thats a big asumption too) that our legal system is fair. as jacked up as the system is would you want to be poor and face a CP trial. I do not think so..)

As for the US gov't telling the whole truth all the time... Did the Brothers Grim write that one?

As stated earlier, the citation that I listed was a clearing house for ant-CP information from a variety of sources (From independent studies, trade journals, etc.)

I see no viable argument that would indicate that killing the offender does anything but kill them.

Mostly I agree with you and I have traditionally been an ardent supporter of capital punishment, mainly because of those that really don't deserve to live another day because of the heinous nature of their crimes. For some, the family of their victims, killing them does bring closure to a nightmare. As you point out, it is increasingly not worth the expense and admittedly, vengeance is not a just reason in and of itself.

I believe we should also look at the rest of the punitive actions which were traditionally intended to act as both a punishment for the crime committed and a deterrent for future offenses. IMO, the evolution of criminal rights has eroded the effect of the system as a whole and contributes to the increase of crime. Incarcerated criminals are losing their fear of the system. It is being more soft hearted every day. No longer do you hear a judge calling for 20 years of hard labor. Now many are sent to a leisure facility to lift weights and play basketball while living at the taxpayers expense. All they suffer is the loss of their liberty and even this seems to be on the decrease. I think it is time to examine what other possibilities may be more effective. Perhaps this is not the thread to continue on this deviation from your topic though, I digress.

As I stated earlier, it actually currently costs more to execute a prisoner than to house them for life, so monetary concerns lean against CP... As for keeping them off the streets...Life imprisonment does the same thing. I see no viable argument that would indicate that killing the offender does anything but kill them. Most studies idicate that CP is NOT a deterrent and it costs more. This would mean that every argument you have put forth for CP actually points toward abolishing the archaic and barbaric sytem istead of bolstering its dubious reputation (This ASSUMING (thats a big asumption too) that our legal system is fair. as jacked up as the system is would you want to be poor and face a CP trial. I do not think so..)

As for the US gov't telling the whole truth all the time... Did the Brothers Grim write that one?

As stated earlier, the citation that I listed was a clearing house for ant-CP information from a variety of sources (From independent studies, trade journals, etc.)

I agree with you. I just started reading this thread, but your post sparked a question. Are there any other possibilities that would be a better deterrent than both CP and Life?

This is a bleed over(forgive the bad pun) from the zero-tolerance thread.1) Does capital punishment reduce crime?

2) Is captital punishment moral?

Personally I would rather die than spend the rest of my life in a cell(maybe if it had good books and a computer with internet access, but I don’t think even Martha Stuart is aloud that). In my mind the answer to the first question is no.As for the second I don’t think anyone has the right to take another persons life. It should be aloud if the criminal wants to do it.

I'd say that if enforced swiftly and strongly, capital punishment could reduce crime. Yeah, I've read articles saying that it doesn't reduce crime, but my guess is that if our system was different, that is, if someone who commits a murder and is found guilty with NO QUESTION is put to death swiftly and without all the BS that goes along with appeals and whatnot, it could be a deterrant. I mean, if there's undeniable proof or a admission of guilt then why would someone need to appeal? They did it, they knew the penalty, now deal with it.

As far as morality...if one person kills another person, on purpose (say, 1st degree murder), then their morals are skewed anyway, so what does it matter?

We spend waaaay too many tax dollars keeping savage criminals alive and comfortable when they deserve much less. First degree murder? Give 'em a death sentance or solitary confinement for the rest of their life in a dark 3' by 5' cell, eating just enough to survive.

Somebody in this forum said recently that medical advances will lead to advances on this topic. Yeah, if somebody kills someone, lock them up and what not, but what if they actually do learn from their mistakes?
I know if i was sentenced to 300 years in prison, I would sure as hell get better, but see that's just me.
Not everybody will learn from their msitakes, they would kill again if they had the chance.
What if we could actually hear the truth inside of these people, neurologically. (I don't know if that's the right term)
What I mean is...Use brain technology to determine whether or not an inmate has changed from his time in a cell. This would decrease the ammount of inmates, yeilding less tax money, and less people suffering.
yay?